Why does the Common Core method deviate so much from traditional ways of teaching?
>>16998227The left is more opaque and confusing.I'm very intelligent but I struggled with mathematics growing up in the early 2000s because these old systems didn't make sense symbologically.The common core depiction there actually allows quicker calculation and more elucidation about what's happening, although I learned the left myself.
>>16998227Physicist here. Bachelor's in math and physics. PhD in physics. The method on the right, while visually complex, is how I conduct the multiplication. The formal structure of arithmetic is obvious. When it comes to the left, "carrying the two" is strange and vague (carrying the "ones two" is different from carrying the "ten's two"), formally speaking. The only people I've met who hate the common core method for math are those who are clinically retarded when it comes to simple arithmetic and can only follow a simple algorithm given to them which is actually never used in practice (nobody, for example, would multiple five digit numbers like that—they'd use the distributive property after breaking the number apart). This is, of course, before the advent of calculators.
>>16998227How would you formally add 37+18? Show your work. This isn't to insult you by insinuating you cannot do it. I instead want to know how you do it. After, I can share how I do it and how this analog is related to the multiplication shown in common core. (I'm not an AI, I just write like this, a la the xkcd comic)
>>16998236This, when I was in school they taught the old way and I did all my math homework common core way before it was even a thing. I refused to do fraction math, just wouldn't do it. I converted all fractions to decimal point numbers and it makes dirt simple math out of a complex retard system of changing denominator and all that bullshit. I got in huge fights with teachers and eventually they gave up and let me solve the math anyway I wanted as long as it was correct and I showed literally every step of the math for them to double check. The issue is i'm a high IQ autist with a photographic memory. I do huge number maths in my head using common core and it's easy to me. But normies can't make it work, normies are low IQ cattle and can't deal with common core despite common core being the far superior method of computation. The phrase "Casting pearls before swine" comes to mind. Normies hate it because their brains are pea sized and made of jello. Many such cases
>>16998248I think your lack of sympathy in the 2nd paragraph is misplaced, because you assume anyone genuinely likes the first system rather than it being a vocal minority of stockholm syndrome'd midwits who force rigid compliance onto everyone else because STEM is their sacred cow.
>>16998245From playing cribbage with my dad growing up I spot a 15 for 2 points immediately and then add 10 more to the 30+15(for 2) +10 = 55
>>16998227Common core is basically formalizing all the "tricks" that most interested people figure out themselves. The reason it pisses people off is it introduces new vocabulary and diagrams that the parents won't be familiar with. So if the lecture went over the kid's head in class then his parents will be just as confused as he is about how to complete an assignment.
>>16998227That's not the traditional method. You show a shortcut to the treaditional method.The traditional method breaks out the multiplication by place on separate lines then adds them together: 63 x9--------- 27 +540--------- 567
>>16998286100% this. Every time my daughter came to me for help with this stuff I had to go digging and learn what they're actually trying to get at. Maybe it's good for visual learners but if the teacher (some video online nowadays) doesn't explain it well then it's confusing for kids that don't make the visual connection.
>>16998286People have been suspicious of "new math" and newfangled ways of doing things pedagogically that they've been conditioned to reflexively denounce all such changes regardless of quality. The scepticism is warranted but overblown.
>>16998289>--------->27>+540>--------->567I wasn't taught this.The op image is how it was taught in my elementary school. What you posted is what the common core thing does but put into the old visual arrangement.
The common core methods of learning arithmetic are far superior to the algorithmic method arithmetic was taught in the past. The algorithmic methods were designed to find answers quickly in the absence of computational devices. With the ubiquity of calculators, that is no longer an issue. Students with only the algorithmic method have more problems with magnitude, ordination, and approximation than those that learned through common core. The algorithmic method of summation hides the count in the algorithm; the algorithmic method of multiplication hides the ordination of the number in the carry; while the algorithmic method of division hides the least common factors in the subtraction. Students walk away from algorithmic learning with weak concepts of arithmetic. and cannot see all arithmetic as simple counting, making advanced mathematical concepts difficult. The algorithmic methods also rely on spatial constraints — rows and columns — that can easily be lost by young writers that do not have the control to keep numbers in line, robbing them of mathematical understanding, and frustrating them with wrong answers that have nothing to do with the understanding of math, and everything to do with a lack of coordination. In common core methods, the answer may take longer to achieve, but the understanding and the intuition gained is far superior as evidenced by fewer students with gaps in their understanding. I would venture that parents unable to do common core homework are those that never got the concepts of arithmetic to begin with, which is why they find the homework hard. Common core has been tested and proven to produce far superior results. However, the real reason common core is attack has to do with backwards religious and tax adverse conservative political forces that attack all public schooling, and can use the frustration of stupid parents to demonize scientifically evidence pedagogy to garner the idiot vote.
>>16998324I think the bulk of your post seems accurate and insightful, but I think you injected your political bias / agenda in there at the end needlessly.It does seem obvious that the old ways has led to lifelong mathematical struggle, which of course would carry over into the ignorance of how common core mathematics is supposed to work. But, that conscious experience in itself explains the evident inculcation to contemporary adults that public education generally does not have students' best interests at heart and is not to be trusted. We collectively have the perception and constant messaging that schooling is getting worse and worse, and this isn't politically polarized, it's universal. Everyone would have a kneejerk reaction to "new math" regardless of their beliefs.
>>16998328I think you are missing the dynamic for the static, and the forest for the trees. While I agree that the management of public schooling is to blame, I can still separate the pedagogy from the bureaucracy, and I vehemently disagree that the teachers and staff do not have the student’s best interest at heart. The problem is not just one of scope. There simply is no way to educate people in a society that is run by authority, and a market that is run by capitalism, because it is impossible to manage a society that is run by authority and a market that is run by capitalism, but that is beyond the scope of a basketweaving board.Suffice it to say that the problem is dynamic, and — most importantly — Gordian, as in the Gordian Knot. You see the Gordian Knot cannot be untied because it does not preserve the number of ropes used in tying it, and so you cannot untie what is tied, because the process of untying it adds and subtracts ropes that may or may not have been added or subtracted.That is to say that the world is a one way function making what is know less important than how to find out. That is the case with public education. Its evolution, in an honest attempt at education and individual empowerment, has continued to change both what is taught and how it is taught in a world that is constantly changing what is known and can be known. But that macro view is irrelevant to the individual student that CAN learn HOW to learn, and common core is a first good attempt in a long while to move the Leviathan of public educational bureaucracy away from WHAT is taught to how we learn.
>>16998227Because we live in the stupid ages.
>>16998227>traditional ways of teaching?You mean like from 1960? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6OaYPVueW4
>>16998245I'd make it 40+15
only 90s kids will remember this
>>16998421I don't get it.
>>16998428I used to get it as a kid, but I don't anymore.
>>16998286My kids came back with this. I looked at it and figured it out. It's not complicated. You split the digits so each is on its own row or column. Not sure how people can't figure this out.
>>16998227I do the left on paper if it's hard and I do the one on the right if I have to do it in my smooth smol brain. I've never actually tried to do the long tail just in my head, I bet I could do it. Please like and subscribe and hit my nuts
>>16998227is this even a good and faithful representation of common core? i swear i've seen other examples of CC and they are way more wacky and un-intuitive. the one on the right of this image is just the obvious way to do it in your head
>>16998227Both are just different ways to frame and solve a problem through an algorithm.
sliding addition terms into round numbers is cheating btw
>>16998227this might be the least egregious example of common core math I've ever seen has it gotten better over the years, or this just a lucky exception?
>>16998227They're the same shit.
>>16998245[math]~3 ~7 \\-1 ~8\\-----\\~\boxed 2~\boxed{-1}\\20-1=\underline{19}[/math]
